Why did the associations matter in 2008? Senator Obama was more or less a blank slate. His record offered little which could be scrutinized—little to indicate what rhetoric was true and what was feigned. Certainly there were the Illinois abortion votes, and the most liberal senator voting record, but the frequent “present” votes and avoidance of most controversy made the record incomplete to many observers. The lack of a strong pattern in his record made his rhetoric on the stump seem plausible to many. The record doesn’t reflect radical racial ideas, or radical Marxist ideas. His rhetoric did not reflect these ideas either. If one wants to believe that he does not hold these ideas, the rhetoric and record did not discourage doing so.

The problem is that a candidate has a motivation to say that which will get him elected rather than that which he truly believes, particularly if what he believes is not popular. Voters need to examine whether a candidate is attempting to pull the wool over their eyes rather than simply accepting the rhetoric as true. Where do you look if there is no record? Voluntary associations, advisors and mentors are the best place to look. People tend to associate with those whose ideas reflect their own. This may not always be true, but it is a good general rule.

Sometimes a person may have disparate group of friends, associates, mentors and the like who embrace a wide variety of disparate ideas. If someone has only four friends whose views on abortion range from desiring no restriction whatsoever on the practice to desiring an absolute bar on abortion regardless of circumstance, it will be difficult to assess that person’s belief on the issue. It is possible that he is pro-life, pro-choice or somewhere in between. If there is no record, then a gut feeling is about all one has to use when assessing whether he is telling the truth about his abortion beliefs.

If on the other hand the person’s only four friends are for abortion in every circumstance, and are even supportive of allowing survivors of failed abortions to die without aid, what is the most likely view of the person who has chosen these four friends? Should he really be believed if he says he is pro-life? Perhaps he is, but the evidence speaks otherwise.

Ayers, Wright and others mattered because they gave us a view into Obama’s true beliefs. He said that he sought out those with that sort of view while going to school. He then befriended and associated with them. There is a long pattern of seeking out and embracing this sort of view. Then in an unguarded moment on the campaign trail he uses very Marxist sounding language. All these pieces of evidence make a clear picture. He sought out Marxists in school, befriended them after school, and uses Marxist language today. It is reasonable to assume that he embraces some degree of Marxist thought, to think otherwise is to ignore all the evidence. The question is not so much whether this is what he believes, it is more a question of to what degree he embraces these ideas.

A voter in the 2008 election could not make an informed, intelligent choice without considering those whose company and ideas Obama sought out, but this will not be the case in 2012. If Obama does what he promised then we are given evidence that he is a man of his word and should have greater confidence that the 2012 election promises will likewise be kept. The record over the next four years will tell us how he is likely to govern the following four years. At the same time it will show that the dubious associations were not a true reflection of his true character and beliefs, or at the least that he is willing to curb idealism with pragmatism. Ayers and Wright will have no positive impact and quite likely a negative impact if things play out this way.

Most likely the promises of 2008 will have been discarded by 2012. This is the pattern that is all too familiar with politicians. His associations suggest he thinks and will act in a particular manner. If he does that which conservatives suspect, then the record of the next four years will be a far stronger line of attack than the associations that failed to sway opinions in 2008. In 2012 he can be hammered for what has done. In 2008 it was necessary to argue about what he likely would do. This isn’t a particularly strong attack and it failed. The associations were evidence of what he would likely do, but don’t have much relevance when exposing what he has done by 2012.

Not only has the limited effectiveness of the Ayers, Wright line of attack run its course, it is more and more likely to create a bigger and bigger backlash the longer it is pursued. This attack needs to be abandoned now. The election of 2008 is over. The focus needs to be 2010 and 2012. Ayers and Wright aren’t going to produce conservative wins in those years, but pursuit of this argument could help produce defeat. Conservatives need to avoid looking like loonies for clinging to conspiratorial, failed, attacks that have lost their relevance.

This changed one day when Sweet Sweets scientists discovered that a new Shady Sugars Inc product, Frosty Blasts, contained a dangerous ingredient. Anyone who drank soda and ate a Frosty Blast within an hour of each other would be killed as the two otherwise harmless products reacted and exploded violently. Sweet Sweets brought this information to the authorities who did nothing, so Sweet Sweets came up with a new advertising campaign.

This campaign was very controversial. Rather than following the long tradition of only praising the quality of its own product, Sweet Sweets began to explain the dangers associated with the competitor’s product. Shady Sugars Inc. responded to the new campaign by denying the danger and condemning the new negative tone of its competitor. The people disgusted with Sweet Sweets’ negative advertising campaign turned in droves to Shady Sugars Inc. to satisfy the cravings of their collective sweet tooth. 

Sweet Sweets lost many of its customers because of the negative campaign, but many of those customers lost their lives because they failed to heed the negative but true and relevant warnings.

Is negative political advertising undesirable, something that should be excised from the political process? The answer is that it depends on what is meant by negative advertising. Some negative advertising has nothing to do with any issue that is relevant to the selection of a candidate. “Psst, did you now Candidate Smith’s uncle beats baby seals.” The actions of an uncle who Candidate Smith has never met and does not know are completely irrelevant. This sort of negative advertising should be avoided and condemned.

Candidates have learned though to mix that which is irrelevant with that which is relevant. They give both the same label and neatly avoid true and relevant criticism, and in the process of doing so even manage to make the opponent look like he is the one in the wrong. Voters likewise either fool themselves or allow others to do so, by ignoring that which, while uncomfortable to confront, must be confronted.

When two competing candidates have two equally good platforms with no hidden dangers or shortcomings, then there should be no negative advertising. The inconsequential differences in personal taste that makes someone choose Coke over Pepsi can, with no ill result, lead the voters to select one candidate over the other. This will almost never be the case in any election.

The more likely, and virtually universal circumstance, is that both candidates will have their share of good ideas as well as bad. A candidate can’t be relied on to expose the flaws of his own plan and is far more likely to do everything possible to hide them. Such exposure needs to come from another source. Voters cannot make an informed, wise decision if the flaws are hidden from them. If only the positive is raised, the result is a popularity contest rather than a examination and adoption of the better policy and rejection of the inferior one.

There is “good negative” and “bad negative” campaigning. The “good negative” is absolutely necessary for a healthy debate. It needs to be embraced rather than eschewed. It also needs to be publicly defended and praised. The candidate who needs to expose the dangers and flaws of his opponent’s position, can’t let that opponent label and dismiss those efforts as negative advertising/campaigning. He should instead invite the “good negative” attacks from his opponent and explain why his own such attacks are necessary, good and beneficial.   The “good negative” should be contrasted with the “bad negative”, and the power of the negative label needs to be sapped.

Embracing and even encouraging incoming “good negative” attacks can be an offensive weapon. The candidate who invites criticism can contrast himself with the candidate who hides from the same. Why is he hiding from debate? Why does he cry foul when I expose his flaws, but has no problem attempting to expose my flaws? I invite open honest critique, is that not something desirable in a candidate? If his plans are truly desirable, they will withstand criticism. It is the house of straw rather than the house of brick which fears the structural integrity test offered by strong wind.

My next post will continue with this theme to some extent and will look at other negative advertising that is good. This post has focused on critique of a politician’s ideas; the next will discuss critique of his character. Critique of character is less obviously a form a “good negative” campaigning but nevertheless it is as necessary as critique of his policies.